This Internal Assessment criteria is breakdown into 5 criterion with more easy checklist that easily used by your IB students. Each of criterion was described clearly

1. Final&May&14,&2013&
1
Introduction*to*the*new*assessment*model*for*IA**
The new assessment model uses five criteria to assess the final report of the individual investigation with the following raw marks and weightings assigned:
Personal Engagement Exploration Analysis Evaluation Communication Total
2 (8%) 6 (25%) 6 (25%) 6 (25%) 4 (17%) 24 (100%)
&
Levels of performance are described using multiple indicators per level. In many cases the indicators occur together, but not always. Also, not all indicators are always
present. This means that a candidate can demonstrate performances that fit into different levels. To accommodate this, the IB assessment models use mark bands
and advise examiners and teachers to use a best-fit approach in deciding the appropriate mark for a particular criterion.
Please read the guidance on using mark bands shown above before starting to mark, It is also essential to be fully acquainted with the marking of the exemplars in
the Teacher Support Material. The precise meaning of the command terms used in the criteria can be found in the glossary of the subject guides.
Personal engagement
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student engages with the exploration and makes it their own. Personal engagement may be recognized in
different attributes and skills. These could include addressing personal interests or showing evidence of independent thinking, creativity or initiative in the
designing, implementation or presentation of the investigation.
mark Descriptor
0 The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1 The evidence of personal engagement with the exploration is limited with little independent thinking, initiative or insight.
• The justification given for choosing the research question and/or the topic under investigation does not demonstrate personal
significance, interest or curiosity.
• There is little evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation or presentation of the investigation.
2 The evidence of personal engagement with the exploration is clear with significant independent thinking, initiative or insight.
• The justification given for choosing the research question and/or the topic under investigation demonstrates personal significance,
interest or curiosity.
• There is evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation or presentation of the investigation.
&
Final&May&14,&2013&
2
Exploration
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student establishes the scientific context for the work, states a clear and focused research question and uses
concepts and techniques appropriate to Diploma level. Where appropriate, this criterion also assesses awareness of safety, environmental, and ethical
considerations.
Mark Descriptor
0 The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1-2 • The topic of the investigation is identified and a research question of some relevance is stated but it is not focussed.
• The background information provided for the investigation is superficial or of limited relevance and does not aid the understanding of the
context of the investigation.
• The methodology of the investigation is only appropriate to address the research question to a very limited extent since it takes into
consideration few of the significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the collected data.&
• The report shows evidence of limited awareness of the significant safety, ethical or environmental issues that are relevant to the
methodology of the investigation *&
3-4 • The topic of the investigation is identified and a relevant but not fully focused research question is described.
• The background information provided for the investigation is mainly appropriate and relevant and aids the understanding of the context of
the investigation.
• The methodology of the investigation is mainly appropriate to address the research question but has limitations since it takes into
consideration only some of the significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the collected data.
• The report shows evidence of some awareness of the significant safety, ethical or environmental issues that are relevant to the
methodology of the investigation*.
5-6 • The topic of the investigation is identified and a relevant and fully focused research question is clearly described.
• The background information provided for the investigation is entirely appropriate and relevant and enhances the understanding of the
context of the investigation.
• The methodology of the investigation is highly appropriate to address the research question because it takes into consideration all, or nearly
all, of the significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the collected data.
• The report shows evidence of full awareness of the significant safety, ethical or environmental issues that are relevant to the methodology
of the investigation.*
*&This&indicator&should&only&be&applied&when&appropriate&to&the&investigation.&See&exemplars&in&TSM.& &

2. Final&May&14,&2013&
3
Analysis
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student’s report provides evidence that the student has selected, recorded, processed and interpreted the
data in ways that are relevant to the research question and can support a conclusion.&
mark Descriptor
0 The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1-2 • The report includes insufficient relevant raw data to support a valid conclusion to the research question.
• Some basic data processing is carried out but is either too inaccurate or too insufficient to lead to a valid conclusion.
• The report shows evidence of little consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty on the analysis.
• The processed data is incorrectly or insufficiently interpreted so that the conclusion is invalid or very incomplete.
3-4 • The report includes relevant but incomplete quantitative and qualitative raw data that could support a simple or partially valid conclusion
to the research question.
• Appropriate and sufficient data processing is carried out that could lead to a broadly valid conclusion but there are significant
inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the processing.
• The report shows evidence of some consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty on the analysis
• The processed data is interpreted so that a broadly valid but incomplete or limited conclusion to the research question can be deduced.
5-6 • The report includes sufficient relevant quantitative and qualitative raw data that could support a detailed and valid conclusion to the
research question.
• Appropriate and sufficient data processing is carried out with sufficient accuracy so as to enable a conclusion to the research question
to be drawn that is fully consistent with the experimental data.
• The report shows evidence of full and appropriate consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty on the analysis
• The processed data is correctly interpreted so that a completely valid and detailed conclusion to the research question can be deduced.
&
Final&May&14,&2013&
4
Evaluation
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student’s report provides evidence of evaluation of the investigation and the results with regard to the research
question and the accepted scientific context.
Mark Descriptor
0 The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1-2 • A conclusion is outlined which may not be relevant to the research question or may not be supported by the data presented.
• The conclusion is erroneous or superficial compared to the accepted scientific context.
• Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, are outlined but are restricted to an
account of the practical or procedural issues faced.
• The student has outlined very few realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation.
3-4 • A conclusion is described which is relevant to the research question and supported by the data presented.
• A conclusion is described which makes some relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.
• Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, are described and provide evidence of
some awareness of the methodological issues* involved in establishing the conclusion.
• The student has described some realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation.
5-6 • A conclusion is described and justified which is relevant to the research question and supported by the data presented.
• A conclusion is correctly described and justified through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.
• Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, are discussed and provide evidence of
a clear understanding of the methodological issues* involved in establishing the conclusion.
• The student has discussed realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation.
*See&exemplars&in&TSM&for&clarification&

3. Final&May&14,&2013&
5
Communication
This criterion assesses whether the investigation is presented and reported in a way that supports effective communication of the focus, process and
outcomes.
mark Descriptor
0 The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1-2 The presentation of the investigation is unclear, making it difficult to understand the focus, process and outcomes.
• The report is not well structured and is unclear: The necessary information on focus, process and outcomes might be missing or is
presented in an incoherent or disorganized way.
• The understanding of the focus, process and outcomes of the investigation is obscured by the presence of inappropriate or irrelevant
information.
• There are many errors in the use of subject specific terminology and conventions*.
3-4 The presentation of the investigation is clear. Any errors do not hamper understanding of the focus, process and outcomes.
• The report is well structured and clear: the necessary information on focus, process and outcomes is present and presented in a coherent
way.
• The report is relevant and concise thereby facilitating a ready understanding of the focus, process and outcomes of the investigation.
• The use of subject specific terminology and conventions is appropriate and correct. Any errors do not hamper understanding.
*&e.g. incorrect/missing labelling of graphs, tables, images; use of units, decimal places. For issues of referencing and citations refer to the academic honesty
section . &
&